The situation is similar here. I've just gone through another session of xorgwizard hell. Using the new "TEST" button I get, as before, a good X screen. The only new possible new clue I have is that after I press ctl+alt+bspc I see a fleeting text line, too brief to read, but it seems to say "X connection to 0.0 broken . . ." or such.

Am I the only one with such a problem? All three 2.13s have started without a pup_sav.3fs file, but none start with one - a good one that always works with 2.12. What's wrong with 2.13 that wasn't with 2.12?

I have tried several different config files, both 0.5G and my usual 1Gb, different computers, with and without copying sfs and zdrv, etc. Xvesa always worked with all prior puppies, but it won't work at all in this situation.

It's been baffling, so different from the great prior puppy experience I've come to appreciate.

Finally some news. I've probably been driving people up the wall with this, but mostly myself. Here's what I found.

It's not a video problem at all. But there is something about the pup_sav.3fs file that 2.13 doesn't like and that keeps it from starting the video. As I've said over and over, 2.12 likes the configuration file and works perfectly with it.

So here's what I did. I started 2.12 without any configuration file. I did a modest amount of configuring - set the background to grey, enabled autohide, installed the Gimp, and connected to the internet. A very small amount of customizing compared to my working 2.12 system. This was then saved at exit as a new pup_sav.3fs.

I then booted from 2.13 final. It liked this simple new configuration and took off immediately, in Xvesa which I always use, no wizards, etc. So 2.13 _does_ start with a configuration file, just not the one I want, unfortunately.

So the mystery is what makes a configuration "incompatible," the fear of having to start over at each new version. I think we need to understand this in order to have confidence that a future upgrade will be successful. Right now I will have to start over if I want to use the new features in 2.13.

(Oops, I just noticed that the config is still a .3fs Shouldn't that have been converted into a .2fs? I'll run it again and check.)

OK, I ran 2.13 a second time. It's still .3fs, and I had noticed that the first time it had copied zdrv_213.sfs to the hard drive. It starts quickly, runs Gimp, etc, but one lttle oddity - the grey screen is crosshatched until I choose the Xvesa setup from the menu ??

I have been checking and rechecking. You know how time-consuming that can be, but I have pretty good confidence that everything I reported above is correct, with this one exception
"but one lttle oddity - the grey screen is crosshatched until I choose the Xvesa setup from the menu ?", which was a finger fumble of mine. Forget it.

Also, I am confident that there are no stray instances of configuration files elsewhere on my four hard drive partitions or the one usb flash. (The 98se find function is worthless for this on large files, but I looked in all the plausible places and of course used gtkfind with all mounted.)

So, to recap:

1- I now have 2.13 final working with a simple dummy config file that was upgraded from 2.12 as a test and

2- I have my regular working 2.12 final with all tweaks. There seems to be no way to upgrade this to 2.13, as reported :(

Sorry to keep harping on this. I'm just a "user", but it probably could happen to someone else equally unable to fix it. So I have some questions -

Is there a way to examine or test the content of pup_sav.3fs to determine if there is some corruption or whatever that doesn't matter in the current version but prevents upgrading to the next?

Is a pup_sav "cleaner utility" feasible?

If I bit the bullet and started configuring over again in 2.13, is there any assurance that an upgrade to 2.14, etc will work? (Yes, I know - no guarantees, etc. but is this the plan?)

What is thought to be the cause of this - a bug, intolerance of package handling errors (of which I've encountered many), or what, and the outlook for preventing it? Yes, of course I understand that any file can be corrupted, becoming unusable, but if a configuration works in one version it should be (I think) usable in the next, at least to the point of being able to adapt it. It it won't run at all it's a show-stopper.

Thanks for your patience. I know and appreciate that Barry and others are doing superhuman work here that is greatly admired and appreciated. Just wondered what the thinking was on this. No one can expect prompt action on any specific issue. There are many other priorities.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum